History

March 02, 2016

Language very much not only conveys meaning but it shapes meaning. It has the power to form how the users of the language perceive what they understand to be reality. What we perceive, we name but no word stands alone. Words belong to a language, and languages are not static as long as they are being spoken. Orientalium ecclesiarum of Vatican II called for the restoration of the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches with these words in § 17: “The holy council wishes the institution of the permanent diaconate (ut institutum diaconatus permanentis,) to be restored where it has fallen into disuse, in order that the ancient discipline of the Sacrament of Orders may flourish once more in the Eastern Churches.” Quite clearly the word diaconate is modified by the word permanent in this document. However, it is not usual to speak of the presbyterate or the episcopate as permanent so why then does the diaconate receive this modifier?

If all dogs were black, it would be understood by the reader or listener, that when the word dog was used, it implied a black dog. However, all dogs are not black, and it does help to identify a particular dog by its color when necessary. Of course, there are many other ways of identifying a dog besides referring to its color. Unlike dogs, deacons in the Roman Catholic Church are identified in two categories, permanent and transitory. But all deacons are of one genus and one species. There are not two types of deacons. All deacons regardless of particulars such as rite, age, marital status, education, ethnicity, race, etc., belong to the order of the diaconate, and the said order is permanent being of apostolic and divine institution. It is an essential part of the hierarch. It is because of this reality that the diaconate can be called permanent.

The only differentiation that can be made among deacons is one of liturgical precedence when more than one deacon serves, and the purpose of liturgical precedence is to establish good order, and to be free of arbitrary and subjective decisions. (This same differentiation of liturgical precedence is made with the episcopate and the presbyterate. Thus archbishops precede bishops, and protodeacons/archdeacons precede deacons.)

(The angel is vested as a deacon: sticharion (alb), orarion (stole) over the left shoulder, epimanikia (cuffs)under the sticharion.)

It seems that the primary reason for referring to some deacons as permanent is because other deacons are transitory. The transitory deacon while not solely, is primarily the fruit of the curus honorum, which I will address in a separate post in the near future. All of the orders are permanent, yet one can move from one particular order e.g. the order of the baptized and christmated to another particular order, e.g. the diaconate. The anomaly is not the permanent but the transitional.

While the norm of the transitional deacon has been with the Church for well over a thousand years, the transitional deacon still remains irregular from the perspective of order and vocation. We need to consider the following, which will put the transitional deacon into context. The original purpose of the curus honorum was to provide a period of education, training and spiritual development for a candidate that would be ordained, i.e. received into the order of the presbyterate. Keep in mind that seminary training is in the wake of the Reformation. Keep in mind that many following the Peace of Constantine sought offices in the hierarchy because it would be to their social and pecuniary benefit. There needed to be a way to test the candidates. There was a time in Western Christendom that a candidate would not be ordained to the diaconate before 25 years of age, and then spend at least 5 years as a deacon, before ordination to the presbyterate at 30 years of age.

What has also played an important part in this matter is the concept of vocation. From the Christian perspective the primary vocation of every person is union with God (theosis). Yet, when we speak of vocation today, we so often think of religious life and holy orders as vocations, paying little or any attention to the primary vocation. But let us focus here — when a man presents himself as a possible candidate for the presbyterate, he genuinely believes he has a vocation to serve the Church and the apostolic mandate in this order. He does not say to his bishop, let me first try the diaconate and then if I make the grade there, I will go on to the presbyterate. Such a thought would be a non-sequitor. The presbyterate does not follow from the diaconate; it is neither an historical fact nor a theological necessity to be ordained a deacon prior to being ordained a priest, although it is a canonical requirement. (Be patient on this point and await a post on the cursus honorum.) Thus, in regards to language and reality, the transitional diaconate is what leads to us to speak of a permanent diaconate and of permanent deacons.

While the Code of Canon Law (CIC) of the Roman Catholic Church refers to permanent deacons, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches (CCEO) does not refer to permanent deacons and a permanent diaconate. When the CCEO refers to a candidate for the diaconate who has declared that he believes he has a vocation to the diaconate it says, “…a candidate who is not destined for the priesthood,…” (“…de candidate ad sacerdotium non destinato agitur, …”) Can. 760 § 2. This is consistent with the earlier Eastern Catholic code found in Cleri sanctitatae Can. 62. §2. “Those deacons who will not be promoted to the presbyterate are bound by the same obligation.” (“Eadem obligatione tenentur etiam diaconi ad presbyteratum non promovendi.”) The obligation refers to here is a retreat at least every third year.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches marriage is not an impediment to ordination to the presbyterate. Unfortunately, when permanent precedes diaconate, the general understanding is that the deacon is married. If one opens the Annuario Pontificio deacons are listed only as permanent. Thus, those deacons who are “transitional” are excluded. Of course there are exceptions but it must be admitted that language carries its own hermeneutic. The sacramental reality, and that is where the Church is most itself, knows only the diaconate without a modifier, liturgical precedence excepted.

(Roman rite: Bishop Vincent Nguyen & Deacon Pedro Guevara Mann.)

The Particular Law of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church promulgated on April 7, 2015 reads in 101 (CCEO: 760 § 1,)

“§ 1. A deacon may be ordained to the presbyterate only after successfully completing the fourth year of philosophical-theological studies and the required seminary formation.

2. In the case of a candidate who is not destined for the priesthood, it is permissible to ordain him a deacon only after he has successfully completed the three years of studies mentioned in CCEO: 354. If in the future, the candidate wishes to receive holy orders, then he must complete the required theological studies and seminary formation before this.”

Again we see that the adjective “permanent” is not used for “a candidate who is not destined for the priesthood.” The particular law certainly allows such a deacon who completes “the required theological studies and seminary formation” to request ordination to the presbyterate.

Since the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not inclined to divide the diaconate into “transitional” and “permanent”, is there any real theological need to use such terminology in the Roman Catholic Church? These terms have only a very recent history and are not particularly helpful because they tend to divide the order of the diaconate, thus making it difficult to grasp and understand the diaconate as an apostolic and divinely instituted order, not an apprenticeship to the priesthood.

February 13, 2016

A cleric who has been deposed or suffered an injustice at the hands of his bishop, has the right to take his case to the highest authorities in the catholic church, namely the supreme pontiffs

This holy synod has also decided that any priest or deacon who has been deposed by his bishop for some crime, or who alleges he has suffered some kind of injustice and is not satisfied with the judgment of his bishop, saying that he does not trust him and that he has been wronged, either because of the enmity which the bishop has for him or because of favors the bishop wants to bestow on certain others, such a person has the right to have recourse to the metropolitan of his province and to denounce his deposition from office, which he thinks is unjust, or any other injury. The metropolitan should be willing to take up such cases and to summon the bishop who has deposed the cleric or injured him in any way. He should examine the case himself, with the help of other bishops, so as either to confirm the deposition of the cleric beyond all doubt, or to quash it by means of a general synod and the judgment of many persons.

In the same way we decree that bishops may have recourse to the patriarch, their head, if they complain that they have suffered similar things from their metropolitan, so that the business in question may receive a just and right decision from their patriarch and the metropolitans under him. No metropolitan bishop may be judged by his neighboring metropolitan bishops, even though it is alleged that he has committed serious crimes, but he many only be judged by his own patriarch; we decree that his judgment will be just and beyond suspicion because a number of esteemed people will be gathered around the patriarch, and for this reason his judgment will be fully ratified and confirmed. If anyone does not agree with what we have promulgated, let him be excommunicated.

The above canon is clear; it is a procedural address to injustices incurred by clerics from their hierarchical superiors. It does raise a question for those deacons and presbyters who are incardinated into the eparchy/diocese of the head of a Church sui iuris. To whom does a deacon in the Diocese of Roman appeal if he believes his bishop has treated him unjustly?

Question 1: I have a question regarding the veneration of the high place instead of the Holy Table upon crossing the midline of the Church.

Response 1: There is certainly no need to create a false dilemma with an “either or”. No one is being asked to choose the High Place over the Holy Table. Byzantine liturgical space has various foci and numerous liturgical appointments, e.g. iconostasis, ambo, Holy Table, prothesis table, high place, cathedra, bema, solea, naos/nave, narthex, etc. Liturgy is always complex and rich in symbols. Unlike a sign, which generally has but one direct meaning, symbols convey many meanings simultaneously. For example the Holy Table is the tomb and the throne of Christ, it is a table (namely the focus of a meal), and an altar (namely the focus of a sacrifice). It is a tomb for the relics of martyrs. It is washed (baptized) with water, wine, rose water, and consecrated with Holy Chrism. It is clothed in fine linen (burial shroud, swaddling clothes, baptismal garment), bound with a cord (think of Christ and his witnesses the martyrs being led away to death), and finally covered with a cloth usually of rich brocade for upon it the King of Glory is enthroned.

Upon the Holy Table, minimally there rests the Gospel Book and a hand cross. Is there an “either or” between these and the Holy Table? Certainly not. Hopefully, one can see that to participate in liturgy it is fundamental to have a mind that can perceive various meanings at various levels simultaneously: it is to have a mind that can read symbols and not be conflicted.

Response 2: I will address this question in the context of the Ruthenian recension of the Byzantine rite. In 1944 the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches published Ordo Celebrationis Vesperarum, Matutini et Divinae Liturgiae Iuxta Recensionem Ruthenorum. This text was to accompany the Liturgicon of 1942 published by the same congregation. It provides further rubrics to the Liturgicon. Under General Rules section 11 we read: It is also proper for the deacon to show reverence by inclining his head and shoulders a little to the celebrating priest before leaving the Altar to sing the ektenias, and when the deacon returns to the Altar. A commentary on this text published by Eastern Christian Publications in 1996 on page 133 reads: In practice, the deacon normally asks the priest’s blessing in the usual way when he leaves the Altar for an ektene. When he returns, the deacon bows to the high place and then to the celebrant.

In order to understand the rubrics and the commentary we must first understand what the high place is and its significance. There are a number of axes in a Byzantine church. There is a vertical axis below the dome of the naos or nave, and another vertical axis below the dome of the bema over the Holy Table. There is a horizontal axis running from the west to the east with its focal point being the high place. Do not mistake the bishop’s cathedra for the high place, although they are related they are distinct.

The current Liturgicon of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church published in 1988 reads on p57 the following:

As the Thrice-holy Hymn is being sung, the priest and the deacon join in the recitation . . . .

The deacon then says to the priest:

Master, proceed.

They depart for the place on high. As the priest proceeds, he says: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Deacon: Master, bless the chair on high.

Priest: Blessed are You on the throne of glory of Your kingdom, Who sit upon the cherubim, always, now and for ever and ever.

Note that it is not proper for a priest to ascend to the place on high place[sic] or to sit there. He is to sit to the south of the throne on high.

It is apparent that the high place is a symbol of the eschatological dimension of the liturgy, a symbol that most are not conscious of, but is essential to all Christian liturgies. The rubric following the priest’s blessing reveals that its author confuses the bishop’s cathedra with the high place. The high place is the eschatological throne of Christ so how is it possible for a human celebrant to ascend to it physically, even one who is said to be in persona Christi Capitis?

Why is the eschatological so important in the liturgy? Precisely because the Divine Liturgy is an encounter between heaven and earth, it realizes the Kingdom in the here and now. The Kingdom of Heaven is the telos or end of the Christian life; an end that has no end: it is a transfiguration of the human person by grace through theosis. It is simply tragic that so few believers are consciously attentive to the eschatological reality. It would be good to read the New Testament with care and see how saturated it is with an eschatological consciousness. Then, I need to ask myself why am I so inattentive to it? Plainly, it is there in the liturgy for we read in the anaphora of St. John Chrysostom: Remembering, therefore, this salutary commandment, and all that was done for us: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming: We remember what in chronological time is yet to come but in kairos (decisive time; a point where one makes a life changing decision) which is the time of the liturgy, is imminently present. We need to pay attention to the actual reality of the liturgical texts and not our own preconceived notions that lead to a confused hermeneutic.

(Christ on the Cherubim Throne in Glory, early 15th C - St. Andrei Rublev.)

Let us not loose sight of the way in which Eastern Christians pray. It has a direction precisely because of its eschatological dimension. The whole assembly faces the east. Why?

____________________________________________________________

The following is from:

http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Facing%20East.html

Why We Pray Facing East

Facing east is an ancient tradition, grounded in sure knowledge about the final eschatological coming, first told us by the Lord, and then repeated by an angel after the disciples had just seen the Lord ascend into heaven:

“For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27)

“…Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:11)

We believe that our Lord ascended on the Mount of Olives, and when He comes back, He will come on a cloud from the east. Therefore, we face east when we pray.

There are other important biblical references to the east. The following is a non-comprehensive list.

The wise men saw signs of the imminent birth of Christ from the east:

“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” (Mt. 2:1-2)

Ezekiel saw the “glory of the Lord” when facing east:

“And the glory of the Lord came into the house, by the way of the gate looking eastward:” (Ezek. 43:4)

The Jews faced eastward during their worship [in the Temple in Jerusalem]:

“And if the prince should prepare as a thanksgiving a whole-burnt-peace-offering to the Lord, and should open for himself the gate looking eastward, and offer his whole-burnt-offering, and his peace-offerings, as he does on the sabbath-day; then shall he go out, and shall shut the doors after he has gone out.” (Ezek. 46:12)

There are lots of references in the fathers to prayer facing east (see below an excerpt from St John of Damascus concerning this). It has been a uniform part of our tradition since before Apostolic times.

It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the east. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing both with our spirit and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are united with the Lord in a twofold manner, being sharers in the Mysteries and in the grace of the Spirit.

Since, therefore, God is spiritual light, and Christ is called in the Scriptures Sun of Righteousness and Dayspring, the east is the direction that must be assigned to His worship. For everything good must be assigned to Him from Whom every good thing arises. Indeed the divine David also says, Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth: O sing praises unto the Lord: to Him that rideth upon the Heavens of heavens towards the east. Moreover the Scripture also says, And God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed: and when he had transgressed His command He expelled him and made him to dwell over against the delights of Paradise, which clearly is the west.

So, then, we worship God seeking and striving after our old fatherland.

Moreover the tent of Moses had its veil and mercy seat towards the east.

Also the tribe of Judah as the most precious pitched their camp on the east.

Also in the celebrated temple of Solomon, the Gate of the Lord was placed eastward.

Moreover Christ, when He hung on the Cross, had His face turned towards the West, and so we worship, striving after Him.

And when He was received again into Heaven He was borne towards the east, and thus His apostles worship Him, and thus He will come again in the way in which they beheld Him going towards Heaven; as the Lord Himself said, As the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be.

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship [facing] towards the east. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.

Now back to the rubric in section 11 of Ordo Celebrationis. It is in need of more detail for it does not say where the deacon is to stand to make the reverence. Unclear rubrics can be interpreted in more than one way. However, the commentary helps, especially the directions on how the deacon returns. The leave taking of the deacon should mirror the return of the deacon. Thus, the deacon to leave the bema/sanctuary proceeds on the south side to about the middle of the bema; he crosses himself and bows to the high place (the eastern point above the bishop’s cathedra), he turns to the celebrant and bows, (the celebrant blesses the deacon for the deacon should do nothing without a blessing), and the deacon exits via the north deacon’s door.

It is certainly a function of rubrics to keep liturgical celebrations from falling into disorder. Disorder has a rather wide range of behaviors. What I described above is orderly and dignified. It shows reverence and is consciously eschatological. It is not a veneration of the high place for it is not an object or an actual physical point in the church. The high place is an eschatological reality that is present in this age but is yet to be fulfilled in the parousia, in the age to come.

(The Last Judgement)

Question 3: What would you say to someone who would argue that to venerate the high place is to negate, ignore or diminish acknowledgement of the real presence of the Christ in the Eucharist?

Response 3: I would say that a false dichotomy is being created here. The sacramental presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not in competition with the eschatological presence of Christ. Christ is present in the Gospel Book that rests on the Holy Table. When the priest or deacon kisses it, do they show a lack of reverence to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? This is one-dimensional thinking and it is what needs to change. Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. writes in The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites, 2008 on p415 concerning reservation and veneration of the Eucharist in the Christian East the following:

“In general one can say that in the Christian East today “Eucharistic devotion” means to receive Holy Communion. This was once true also in the pre-Medieval West. The idea that the reserved eucharist was something one “visited” or prayed to outside the context of Holy Communion was unknown throughout Christendom in the first millennium. The Christ to whom one prays is everywhere present; what is reserved in the tabernacle is the sacramental presence of his Body and Blood as spiritual food under the species of consecrated bread and wine, one of the many forms of Jesus’ real presence among us — but by no means the only one. That is why Eastern Christians act in the same way upon entering a church regardless of whether or not the eucharist is reserved. They make their reverence, visit and kiss the icons, say their prayers, because for the Eastern Christian every church is the house of God, a sanctuary made holy by its consecration, by its icons, its relics, by the liturgical celebrations and prayers that sanctify it day after day, and not just by the presence of the reserved eucharist. Present-day Roman Catholic devotional attitudes are quite different. The first thing Western Catholics will ask on entering a church is if the reserved eucharist is present — almost as if they think God is absent if it is not.”

Question 4:Which is the centre of worship in the Church, the Holy Table (called the Throne in Ukrainian) or the high place? Is bowing to the high place confusing this taxis?

Response 4: I think this question has already been addressed above. These questions reveal a legalistic and minimalistic perspective in a context in which they do not belong. This is a dangerous mindset to bring to liturgical services. Because liturgy is immersed in symbol and ritual by its very nature, it is complex. There is no confusion in the sacramental reality but the questions because they are framed in an “either or” wording reveal a mentality and spirituality that is reductionist. The questions reflect a confused view of the liturgical-sacramental reality. Why attempt to put the infinite, incomprehensible, and unfathomable God is a box?

(Apse mosaic - San Vitale - Ravenna -6th C)

Question 5: Is this practice at odds with our current Typikon/Ordo?

Response 5: I trust that the responses above demonstrate that the practice of the deacon crossing himself, bowing to the high place and then to the celebrant is nothing but typical of authentic Byzantine piety. That is not to say it is, as Fr. Taft has so clearly pointed out, Western Catholic piety. But why should it be?

January 20, 2016

No bishop may dispose of the property of other churches, and no cleric may celebrate the sacred mysteries in a church other than his own.

We have also learnt that some bishops, at the request of certain people, have unreasonably made a gift of properties belonging to other churches. Thus they usurp the authority of other bishops, so far as they can. This conduct will clearly bring on them the curse of the prophet who says, Woe to those who add house to house and field to field (Is 5:8) in order to defraud their neighbor, and it has made them guilty of sacrilege. For this reason, this great and universal synod has decided that no brother of ours in the episcopate or anyone else may transact such a wicked property deal, nor, if asked by someone, dispose of any property belonging to other churches, nor install priests or any other clerics in churches that are not under his jurisdiction, without the permission of the bishop responsible for the church in question. Furthermore, no presbyters or deacons, who are consecrated for holy functions, should perform, of their own accord and decision, any sacred functions in churches to which they have not been appointed from the beginning. This behavior is unlawful and utterly alien to the canonical regulations.

Whoever, after this declaration of ours, shall be seen to do any of these things which have now been forbidden, must be excommunicated for a period of time, and the contractual arrangements, whether written or not, must be completely dissolved and abrogated because they were made in contravention of the canons. Likewise, the presbyter or deacon is to be suspended until he withdraws from the church to which he does not belong. But if he ignores the suspension, he must be got rid of completely and dispossessed of every sacred office. (Norman P. Tanner, SJ. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Volume I. Sheed & Ward. 1990.)

(Great Entrance or Transfer of the Gifts at Valaam. The deacon in white with the aer covering his head will be ordained to the presbyterate following the anaphora.)

How does this apply to the diaconate today? Very plainly, one serves where one is assigned. Ordination does not give one a license to do as one pleases or sees fit. Those in orders are first ascribed to a local Church. The deacon is a diakonos for his bishop. He is not a diakonos for the Church in general or a diakonos unto himself. The deacon is one who gets something done on behalf of another. The other is the deacon’s bishop. The deacon does not act without the blessing of his bishop (at least presumed). He does not assign himself to a particular church or ministerial activity; he goes where his bishop sends him and acts according to his bishop’s directives. Ministry is ordered by the apostolic mandate but always within the corporate reality of the local Church, that is the Body of Christ. The bishop presides in the local Church; his deacons serve in liturgy, word, and charity, at his behest. The Church is a communion or persons united in Christ by the power and energy of the Holy Spirit. One enters this communion through baptism and chrismation. If a one of the laity is elected to the order of the diaconate, he is received into that order by the laying on of hands and prayer by the bishop. And he becomes the bishop’s diakonos. A diakonos is one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction; one who gets something done, at the behest of a superior. (Walter Bauer, edited by F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd Edition. University of Chicago Press. 2000.)

January 19, 2016

The following statistics on the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches is complied by Fr. Ronald G. Roberson, CSP, edited by Protodeacon David Kennedy. The source is Annuario Pontificio, 2015. The reader will notice that the most significant increase in numbers is with the Chaldean Catholic Church, and these numbers are primarily in their Eparchy in Australia.

Currently, 83% of the deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches are to be found outside of the traditional territories. While there has been a small increase in the number of deacons in the traditional territories, the total numbers there have likewise increased almost threefold since 2000. These are positive signs. But how far some of these Churches are from an active and living diaconal order that gives assistance to the bishops and presbyters can be seen in the numbers.

The Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 21 November, 1964 states: The holy council wishes the institution of the permanent diaconate to be restored were it has fallen into disuse, in order that the ancient discipline of the Sacrament of Orders may flourish once more in the Eastern Churches.(17)

The liturgies of the Eastern Churches cannot be served in their fullness without the assistance of deacons, subdeacons, cantors and readers. This should be motive enough to seek out candidates to fulfill these necessary liturgical functions and not have them assumed either by presbyters or the laity on a permanent basis.

Bishops and pastors need to actively seek out candidates taking Acts 6:1-7 as the model for recruiting vocations to the diaconate and minor orders. When the diaconate has atrophied primarily due to the cursus honorum into no more than a transitional stage on the way to the order of the presbyterate, not only does the liturgical life of the Church suffer, but also the ministries of word, charity, and administration.

December 06, 2014

Part C: Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. 6 January 1996

75. The minor orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination. They provide a specific service in the Church, and as such are to be effectively exercised in a definitive way by those who do not intend to enter the presbyterate, and in a sufficiently ample way by those who are to be ordained presbyters. This is especially valid for the diaconate. In this sense, misgivings should not be had toward conferring minor Orders and even the diaconate on those who comport themselves well, are suitable and appropriately prepared for the responsibility they assume, and declare themselves available for the service of the Church, even if they must continue to live with their families and practice their own trades. Thus, the ministers necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy are obtained, avoiding the practice, different also in this case from the Latin Church in which it is no longer in use, of having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical functions that should be reserved to those of lower range (the most frequent case is that of presbyters functioning as deacons), or of permanently appointing to the laity liturgical tasks expected of a minister: practices to be eliminated.

76. The diaconate was instituted not for priesthood but for the service of the bishops and presbyters. Deacons were, in fact, once considered as their hands and eyes; or, as expressed by Ignatius of Antioch, the deacons manifest in harmony with them to the faithful people “the commandment of the Lord.” [Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smymaeans VII, I SCh 10 A, 138.] A similar perspective, preserved in the Orthodox Churches and in the process of being recuperated in the Latin community, is to also be placed in full light in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The re-establishment of its liturgical and extra-liturgical mission appears, in fact, to be very beneficial.

Both sections 75 & 76 are part of a canonical instruction that shapes a general framework for liturgical life and practice in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Each of these Churches is to take these general prescriptions and apply them to their own rite in a more particular manner.

Section 75 makes it clear that the diaconate and minor orders are not “mere formalities in preparation for presbyteral ordination”.

It stresses that they are to be exercised in a definitive way by those who will remain in these orders, and in a sufficiently ample manner by those to be ordained presbyters. What time line it does not define.

This section from a liturgical standpoint makes the point that is also an ecclesiological perspective, that these “ministers [are] necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy.” I conclude from this that without deacons and those in minor orders (e.g. subdeacons & readers), the liturgical celebrations are neither dignified nor fitting. Rather strong words.

It also states unequivocally the “ministers of a higher range (presbyters functioning as deacons) are not to perform the liturgical functions of those of a lower range nor should the laity be permanently appointed to tasks of a liturgical minister”.

These practices are to be eliminated:

1. Liturgical services that require deacons and those in minor orders being served without them.

2. Having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical services of those of a lower range.

3. Permanently appointing liturgical tasks to the laity that should be performed by liturgical ministers.

If this came about in practice it would make in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches a radical change. We are 18 years past the issuance of this Instruction and a long way from its full implementation. And this makes me imagine there are those who possibly through passivity are simply obfuscating.

This obfuscation is also being justified by those who practice the Extraordinary Form of the Roman liturgy where these liturgical practices are embraced and rigorously defended as ‘traditional’.

Liturgical and theological latinization is so difficult for the Eastern Catholic Churches to avoid. It is no easy task to achieve what Orientalium Ecclesiarum 17, desired, that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again.

(Is this a Latin rite deacon or a subdeacon? What are the clues?)

Part D: What is the current situation?

Prior to Vatican II there were little more than a handful of deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches that were not destined for the presbyterate.

Some 454 of these deacons are outside of the ‘traditional’ homelands, primarily in North America, and this accounts for 78.8% of these deacons.

I would also direct your attention to the Syro-Malankara Church, (439,818 faithful); and the Syro-Malabar Church, (3,899,379 faithful), yet it appears that both have ignored O.E. 17 for the last 50 years. Hopefully, they don’t need to do anything in a timely manner.

The Ukrainian Catholic’s have a ratio of 1 deacon to every 33.7 presbyters but the Chaldeans have a ratio of 1 deacon to every .073 presbyters.

I suggest that you go to the website and make your own conclusions about the numbers.

A few questions to contemplate:

What has impeded the vision and implementation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum and Instruction for Applying the Code…?

How does the diaconate as a permanent rank in the hierarchy change the very dynamics in the diocese and the parish?

What is needed to move forward to embody the vision of the diaconate as set forth by Vatican II for the Eastern Catholic Churches?

At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands “not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.” [Constitutions of the Egyptian Church, III, 2: ed. Funk, Didascalia, II, p.103, Statuta Eccl. Ant. 37-41: Mansi 3, 954.] For strengthened by sacramental grace they are dedicated to the People of God, in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests, in the service of the liturgy, of the Gospel and of works of charity. It pertains to the office of a deacon, in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority,

to administer Baptism solemnly,

to be the custodian and distributor of the Eucharist,

in the name of the Church, to assist at and to bless marriages,

to bring Viaticum to the dying,

to read the sacred scripture to the faithful,

to instruct and exhort the people,

to preside over the worship and the prayer of the faithful,

to administer sacramentals,

and to officiate at funeral and burial services.

Dedicated to works of charity and functions of administration, deacons should recall the admonition of St. Polycarp: “Let them be merciful, and zealous, and let them walk according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.” [St. Polycarp, Ad Phil. 5,2: ed. Funk, I, p .300: It is said that Christ “became the ‘diaconus’ of all.” Cf. Didachè, 15, I: ibid. p. 32. St. Ignatius, Martyr, Trall. 2, 3: ibidl, p. 242. Constitutiones Apostolorum 8, 24, 4: ed. Funk, Didascalia, I, p. 580.]

Since, however, the laws and customs of the Latin Church in force today in many areas render it difficult to fulfill these functions, which are so extremely necessary for the life of the Church, it will be possible in the future to restore the diaconate as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy. But it pertains to the competent local episcopal conference, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune that such deacons be appointed. Should the Roman Pontiff think fit, it will be possible to confer this diaconal order even upon married men, provided they be of more mature age, and also on suitable young men, for whom, however, the law of celibacy must remain in force.

What does this document say about the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches?

The diaconate is part of the hierarchy of the Church.

It is received by the imposition of hands; what is known in the Constantinopolitan tradition as cheirotonia.

“not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry” This does not seem to fully accord with the long standing understanding in Eastern Christianity that the diaconate is part of the priesthood. There appears to be more than one theological position on this matter and there is no full agreement between East and West. (Cf. John Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, (Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2009.)

The sacrament of the diaconate confers grace.

Deacons are strengthened by the grace of the sacrament.

The diaconate exists for the “People of God”. It does not exist for the individual deacon and his sanctity.

“in conjunction with the bishop and his body of priests…” The Church is a communion of persons hierarchically structured and the deacons serve in union with the bishop and his presbyters.

The deacon’s service is in liturgy, the Gospel, and works of charity. The diaconate if being fully lived must be lived in all three of these areas. They all work together in a harmonious synergy.

What the deacon does, he must be assigned to do. He does not act in his own name or on his own authority but he acts as the “agent” of the competent authority, viz. his bishop and in a lesser degree his pastor.

(Pope Francis & Patriarch Bartholomew)

A Comparison of the Liturgical Functions

of Deacons East and West

Liturgical Function[1]

Latin Church[2] pre Vatican II

Latin Church post Vatican II

Eastern Churches[3] pre Vatican II

Eastern Churches post Vatican II

Solemn Baptism

No[4]

Yes

No cf. note 4

No cf. note 4

Custodian [5]and Distributer of the Eucharist

Yes[6]

Yes

Yes[7]

Yes cf. note 7

Bless Marriages

No

Yes

No[8]

No cf. note 8

Viaticum

No

Yes

No[9]

No cf. note 9

Read Scripture

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Instruct and exhort the faithful[10]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Preside at worship

Qualified

yes [11]

Yes

No

No

Administer sacramentals

Qualified yes[12]

Qualified yes[13]

No

No

Officiate at Funerals

No

Yes

No

No

This table provides a quick overview of diaconal liturgical functions in the various Churches of the Catholic communion, and shows where they are the same and where they are not. Lumen gentium 29, certainly seems to extend all these functions to all deacons regardless of their particular Church with the following provision: “in so far as it may be assigned to him by the competent authority”. A deacon must follow the liturgical prescriptions of his own particular Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches by tradition have not assigned to the deacon solemn baptism, the blessing of marriages (such marriages would be invalid, even if a deacon of the Latin Church attempted to give the blessing), presiding at worship, administration of sacramentals, and officiating at funerals.

The Synod of Uk. Cath. Bishops in Canada in a draft text of 1987gave to deacons a wide range of faculties similar but not identical to the Latin deacons. (Cf. pp118-123 of David Motiuk, Eastern Christian in the New World. Ottawa. Saint Paul University. 2005.)

We can also see that there was a greater similarity in diaconal liturgical functions between East and West prior to Vatican II.

[1] As listed in Lumen Gentium 29.

[2] The Latin Church following the Council of Trent had these rites: Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Dominican, Premonstratian, Carmelite, Cistercian.

It is obvious from a liturgical perspective that the deacon in the West since Vatican II has when no priest is present also taken on the liturgical role of the protos, i.e. the one who presides. This is certainly a departure from the traditional role of the deacon. In the East the deacon assists the protos and never presides. In the West when a presbyeter/bishop presides, the deacon assists but presides when no protos is present and in a limited way becomes the protos. This raises a number of questions.

Should one do within the liturgy what one does not do regularly in the whole of the Church? No, what one does within and outside of the liturgy should cohere.

What is the liturgical role that the deacon is ordained for? The liturgical role of the deacon is to act as an assistant, an agent, and an angelos of the proestos.

What is the original relationship of the deacon to the bishop and the presbyters? Someone who gets something done on behalf of the one he is a diakonos for. Someone who acts as an intermediary or an agent in a transaction. The angelos of the proestos.

Can one be a deacon without being a deacon to or for someone else? Not in any real sense for orders define relationships. If you ask a man is he a deacon and he responds yes, but he has no bishop, to say the least you should be puzzled.

Does the Catholic Church have a coherent harmony with the diaconate in East and West? Yes and no; for on the liturgical level there is some confusion.

November 22, 2014

I would like to compare Orientalium ecclesiarum 17, with Lumen gentium 29.

What does O. e. 17 say? In order that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again, this sacred council ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.(21) The legislative authorities of each individual church should decide about the subdiaconate and the minor orders and the rights and obligations that attach to them.(22)

Section 17 of Orientalium ecclesiarum, (November 21, 1964)can be outlined in the following manner:

There is a “desire or a wish” on the part of the holy council/synod that the permanent diaconate be restored in the Eastern Catholic Churches. However, it is but a “desire or a wish”, thus, the diaconate as a permanent order does not need to exist. Why?

The reason for this restoration is that the “ancient discipline/legislation concerning the sacrament of orders in the Eastern Churches may regain its force/flourish once more”.

There is a recognition that the permanent diaconate “has fallen into disuse”.

We need to ask what is the text referring to by the words, “the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches”. There is no clear time framework in the text in which to place this unless the footnotes provide us with a clue. These notes refer to canonical and patristic texts ranging from the early 4th to the late 9th centuries. It can be presumed based on these footnotes that this period establishes the paradigm for the diaconate in the Eastern churches, at least from the perspective of Orientalium ecclesiarum No. 17. A general examination of the footnotes also reveals a legislative tone in regards to the practice of the diaconate. (For the footnotes check this blog.)

The reader should note not only the texts referred to but the many texts and types of texts not mentioned in the footnotes. There are no references to the New Testament and the concept of diakonia found therein or of the N.T. references to the office of the deacon.

The many references to the diaconate found in the pre-Nicene church are also missing. Why not refer to the diaconate as found in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.? Again, we should ask why are the early church orders, e.g. The Didache, Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, Didascalia Apostolorum, Apostolic Church Order/Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Testament of Our Lord, absent? Why no mention of the diaconate in these patristic writings of the East? Possibly, the reader will be able to ascertain the mindset of this decree not only from what it says, but also from what it does not say. (The footnotes tend to a law perspective while Orientalium ecclesiarum 17 is suggestive rather than prescriptive.)

The next phrase in the text that deserves attention is “ardently desires that the office of the permanent diaconate should, where it has fallen into disuse, be restored.”

Let us begin to parse this. The term “permanent diaconate” is not generic to the Eastern or Western Churches. This is a concept that arises since Vat. II in order to make a distinction between those who have declared that they have a vocation to the presbyterate and thus, must pass through the minor orders and the “transitional diaconate” to arrive at the priesthood, and those who have declared that they have a vocation to the diaconate.

The adjective “permanent” refers not to the deacon but to the order of the diaconate itself. All of the Apostolic orders; episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate are permanent.

It is the order and not the person in the order that is permanent.

Each of the Apostolic orders in its own unique way serves in the ministries of liturgy, word and charity. When there has been a lack of deacons in the church, the Apostolic diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have suffered.

In various ways the diaconal ministries of liturgy, word, and charity have been assumed by or transferred to either the order of the presbyterate or to the laity.

In the Divine Liturgy we see that most of the diaconal functions, when no deacon is present to serve are assumed by the celebrant or concelebrants, and to a minor extent by the lay altar servers.

However, the diaconal functions do not disappear in the liturgy, word or charity. That is because the diaconal apostolic ministry is essential to the very nature of the church and her mission in the world.

(What follows below is the first part of a paper delivered Oct 18, 2014 at the University of St. Michael's College in the University of Toronto. This international conference was titled The Vatican II Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium ecclesiarum - Fifty Years Later.)

(Deacon Joseph Koczera)

Part A: What did the diaconate look like at the time of Vatican II?

In the East it was both a transitional order on the way to the presbyterate and a permanent order. In the West it was definitively transitional.

It had been this way for at least a millennium primarily due to the cursus honorum, (a training period). Why be anything other that a priest? There was a presupposition that the presbyterate was the only real order in the Church, as everything before it was preliminary. The Low Mass in the West also contributed to the demise of the diaconate for in it only the priest was necessary. This leads to the break down of liturgy as a corporate action and the Church as a corporate reality.

The cursus honorum arose both in the East and the West in order to provide sufficient and adequate training for the clergy in the post-Constantinian Church when clerical ministry no longer made one a candidate for martyrdom but rather had the potential of a social and economic benefit. In response to this, there arose a pattern where a candidate for the presbyterate would pass sequentially through all the minor orders and the diaconate over a given period of time before ordination to the presbyterate. (For a detail study refer to John St. H. Gibaut. The Cursus Honorum: A Study of the Origins and Evolution of Sequential Ordination. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. 2000.)

The Council of Trent had called for a renewal where the diaconate, and the minor orders would be real and permanent but nothing came of this.

Eventually the cursus honorum gave way to seminary training.

The Eastern Churches that entered into communion with the Church of Rome were quick to adopt the Roman seminary paradigm for the education and training of their own clergy. As a result of this, the diaconate and minor orders were thought of in the Eastern Catholic Churches as no more than stepping-stones to the real goal – the holy priesthood.

The Codex iuris canonici 971 § 1,(1917) did not permit anyone to remain in minor orders or the diaconate. Everyone was to proceed to the presbyterate.

In the Eastern Cath. Churches there was a slight difference for Cleri sanctitati (1957) did not require clerics to advance to the priesthood but permitted them to remain in the diaconate and minor orders.

We know the picture in the West and to a large extent in the Eastern Catholic Churches: the diaconate was transitional and as one can easily image it is next to impossible to develop a real and living paradigm of diaconal ministry where the goal of all clerical vocation is the priesthood. The diaconate was a canonical or legal requirement that lead to the real order, the presbyterate.

Robert Clément, S.J. writing in 1966 shortly after the promulgation of Orientalium ecclesiarum addresses the situation of the diaconate in both the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches. (Cf. “Situation Présente du Diaconate en Orient” in P. Winninger et Y. Congar. Le Diacre Dans L’Eglise et Le Monde D’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. 1966. 63-70.) He states that among the Chaldean Catholics there are 5 deacons and 3 for the Syrians. He mentions that among the Maronites deacons can be found in the monasteries but he gives no numbers.

In my own Church, the Ukrainian Catholic, the paradigm following the Union of Brest became the Roman one. In the first half of the 20th c. Metropolitan Andrew Sheptysky and his brother, Blessed Clement implemented the diaconate as a permanent order among the Studite monastics, but again there were only a few. There were also a few ordained for St. George’s Cathedral in Lviv. During the period of persecutions following Soviet suppression of the Ukrainian Greco Catholic Church, the diaconate in practice was again reduced to a transitional order, sometimes for no more than a day.

Clément mentions that in the Orthodox Church in Russia in 1914 there were 15,210 deacons, 50,150 presbyters and 149 bishops for 100 million faithful in 67 dioceses. Yet in the Orthodox Church in Greece, Clément tells us that it is rare to find deacons who will serve permanently in that order. There, deacons are awaiting ordination to the presbyterate or are found on the staff of bishops where they frequently go on to the episcopate itself; sometimes only a day or two after presbyteral ordination. We can easily see that among the Eastern Catholics and among some of the Orthodox that the diaconate as a permanent order “had fallen into disuse”.

Why was this the case? There seems to be a number of reasons.

When there is no remuneration for deacons as there is for presbyters, the diaconate as a permanent rank declines. The Russian Orthodox Church paid the deacons not only for their liturgical services but also had them employed as teachers of religion in the schools. In the Eastern Catholic Churches as in the Orthodox Church in Greece it was often difficult to find funding for priests let alone deacons.

The Eastern Catholic Churches adopted an educational paradigm for their clergy that was closely modeled after the Post-Tridentine practice as found in the Latin West. In this case the minor orders and the diaconate were conceived of and practiced solely as transitional steps to the real goal of the presbyterate.

Why be a deacon if you can be a priest? This mindset develops from number 2 above. The minor orders and the diaconate are seen as only canonical requirements for ordination to the presbyterate, and the canonical practice is no longer reflecting a period when the cursus honorum meant a real training period of many years in each of the minor orders and the diaconate. For example a man was not to be ordained a deacon before 25 years of age and not a presbyter before 30 years of age. Therefore, he would have at least 5 years of real diaconal service and training before ordination to the presbyterate. The cursushonorum existed as a functional training ground for clergy before the seminary system that followed the Council of Trent. But following Trent the training was shifted to the seminary and the cursus honorum lost its original raison d’être. This being the case, a man often spent very little time in the diaconate or any of the minor orders. The requirements became little more than legalistic and had little to do with real ecclesial life.

Reason number 3 above leads to a mindset of “he who can do more can do less”. Thus, the priest can do everything a deacon can do and more. When there is no deacon present at liturgical services, the diaconal functions are assumed either by the priest or lay servers, or lay readers. At more solemn services among the Eastern Catholics it was not uncommon for a priest to vest as a deacon and serve as such. This was the common practice in the Latin West also, for there is an understanding in Western theology that the priest is still a deacon after ordination to the presbyterate. (This matter is still to be addressed fully in Catholic theology and liturgical practice. This is not only a sacramental matter but also one that goes to the heart of the apostolic ministerial practice, pneumatology and ecclesiology.)

Thus, we can see that a number of diverse factors and historical contingencies led to the reality of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as some of the Orthodox Churches being little more than a vestige. What was established by the Apostles as part of the apostolic ministry had atrophied in most local Churches into little more than a transitional period for the purpose of fulfilling a canonical obligation.

The liturgical tradition as exemplified in the texts bore witness to an active diaconate but the reality was something quite different. This certainly raises serious questions about the self-consciousness of the Church. It seems that the bishops of Vatican II were acutely aware of the need to address this matter and as we will see their reasons were rooted in the patristic witness to the apostolic Church.

August 27, 2014

No one, whether presbyter or deacon or anyone at all who belongs to the ecclesiastical order, is to be ordained without title, unless the one ordained is specially assigned to a city or village church or to a martyr’s shine or a monastery. The sacred synod has decreed that the ordination of those ordained without title is null, and that they cannot operate anywhere, because of the presumption of the one who ordained them.

What does this canon mean by the term ‘title’? It is derived from the Latin titulus. It refers specifically to the revenue or income that is attached to a certain church. This revenue is made available to the clergy assigned to and serving at the titulus. Thus, a bishop is not to ordain a candidate unless the one ordained can be financially maintained.

The rise of the permanent diaconate in the Catholic Church since Vatican II has departed from this practice that can be dated to the 3rd century in Rome. Let us first review the most relevant canons and then make a short synopsis of the current practice.

Can. 390 - §1. Clerics have the right to a suitable sustenance and to receive a just remuneration for carrying out the office or function committed to them; in the case of married clerics, the sustenance of their families, unless this has been otherwise sufficiently provided, is to be taken into account.

§2. They also have the right that there be provided for themselves as well as for their families, if they are married, suitable pension funds, social security as well as health benefits. So that this right can be effectively put into practice clerics are bound by an obligation on their part to contribute to the fund spoken of in can. 1021, §2 according to the norm of the particular law.

Can. 371 - §1. Having fulfilled the requirements of law, clerics have the right to obtain from their eparchial bishop an office, ministry or function to be exercised in the service of the Church.

§2. Clerics are to accept and faithfully carry out every office, ministry, or function committed to them by the competent authority whenever, in the judgment of this same authority, the needs of the Church require it.

§3. However in order that they may exercise a civil profession the permission of their own proper hierarch is required.

Can. 385 - §2. Clerics are forbidden to exercise by themselves or through another any business or trade whether for their own benefit or for that of another, except with permission of the authority defined by particular law or by the Apostolic See.

Clerics are bishops, presbyters and deacons and depending on particular law those in ‘minor orders’ e.g. readers/cantors and subdeacons.

Clerics are not to exercise a civil profession without the permission of their own hierarch.

Clerics are not to operate a business or a trade without permission from the legitimate authority.

Thus clerics must be maintained in a just manner by the office, ministry or function assigned to them.

How is this currently applied to the diaconate in the Eastern Catholic Churches? The reality is that the greatest number of deacons financially support themselves from income earned by a civil profession, a business or a trade. Very few deacons receive income from an office, a ministry or a function assigned to them. If they do, they are usually treated in the same manner, as lay ministers would be in those offices, ministries or functions. It is not unusual to find deacons spending about 10-20 hours per week in ministry. This is given freely and without compensation. The current situation is both a departure from the early and present canonical norms.